Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s International Seaport Dredging Ltd. Versus CC & ST, Visakhapatnam-Cus

2016 (11) TMI 176 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

Confiscation of imported goods u/s Sections 111(d) of the CA, 1962 - option to pay redemption fine u/s 125 of the act - imposition of penalties - import of consignment containing 6 Dumper Caterpillar - 730 - interpretation of statute - prohibition and restriction - whether the said dumpers imported by Appellant will have to conform to the conditions set out in the Import Licensing Notes to Chapter 87 prescribed under Import-Export policy 2004-2009 for new 'motor vehicles'? - section 112 (a) of C .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

By any stretch of imagination, the word' restriction' cannot be equated or read as 'prohibition'. This being so, invocation of 111(d) is not in order, Possibly one or more of the situations attracting confiscation as listed out in 111(a) to (p) may well have been applicable to the facts of this case, but definitely not 111(d). In the event the goods are not liable for confiscation under 111(d) and by implication the invocation of 112(a) and Section 125 are also not sustainable. We therefore have .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Bose, Authorised Representative for the Respondent [Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] Brief facts: The Appellant had imported a consignment containing 6 Dumper Caterpillar - 730 covered under Bill of Entry No.333456 dated 27.05.2008, claiming the goods to fall under the Customs tariff Heading 87041090 as 'motor vehicles for the transport of goods' 'other dumpers designed for off-highway use'. The question that arose is whether the said dumpers imported by Appellant will have to con .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

es, 1989 and the conditions as prescribed in Para 2 II of the Licensing Notes to Chapter 87. b) The Importers did not submit any evidence to claim that the dumpers had fulfilled all the above-mentioned conditions. c) Further Visakhapatnam port is not included in the list of notified ports for the import of new vehicles. d) The goods are liable to be confiscated under Section 11(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 as the import is contrary to the prohibition imposed by law in force, and thus liable to pe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he Ld. Counsel Shri. V.S. Manoj submitted that duty demand of ₹ 4,22,35,949/- has already been paid by appellant vide TR-6 Challan dated 28.05.2008. He however argued that the goods were confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 which is not legal or proper as the good (Dumpers) are not prohibited goods. There is no violation of 111(d) warranting confiscation and imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Act. Goods were properly imported and therefore will not attract .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he records. 5. For better appreciation of the issue under analysis the relevant provision of Sections 111(d), 112 (a) and 125 of Customs Act, 1962 are reproduced as under: Section 111(d): Any goods which are imported or attempted to be imported or are brought within the Indian Customs waters for the purpose of being imported contrary to any prohibition imposed by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force. Section 112 (a): Who in relation to any goods does or omits to do any .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ds 1[or, where such owner is not known, the person from whose possession or custody such goods have been seized,] an option to pay in lieu of confiscation such fine as the said officer thinks fit: Provided that, without prejudice to the provisions of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 115, such fine shall not exceed the market price of the goods confiscated, less in the case of imported goods the duty chargeable thereon. [(2) Where any fine in lieu of confiscation of goods is imposed unde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version